u.s. energy information society and the center for strategic and international studies. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it is friday, december 7, 2012. the 71st anniversary on the attack of pearl harbor. reaction continues this morning over yesterday's resignation announcement of jim demint. the approach and fiscal clift deadline continues to loom over congress and the white house. that is where we want to begin. is it ok for leaders to

compromise, or should they stick to their principles and would it be ok if doing so sent us over the fiscal cliff? give us a call this morning. you can also catch up with us on all of your favorite social media websites. a very good morning to you. i want to begin with the question of compromise or sticking to principle. this is a question a gallup organization asked in a recent poll. it found 62% of americans would like to see the federal government leaders compromise on an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff budget measures set to go

into effect next month. more than twice the 25% who want leaders to stick to their principles. a majority of all party groups favor compromise. here is the breakdown from the gallup organization. 71% of democrats say they want a compromise bursa's 21% who say the party should stick to their principles. among republicans 55% one compromise. 35% say stick to your principles. the gallup poll also found americans are more optimistic and pessimistic that an agreement will be reached before the deadline. 58% say it is a very or somewhat likely leaders will find a solution. 39% say it is not likely. democrats are much more optimistic. 77% of democrats believe it is somewhat likely an agreement

will be reached compared to 33% of republicans. we will be getting to all of the latest on the fiscal clef. we want to hear from you about the idea of compromise. comments already coming in from the facebook page. you can give us a call this morning. the lines are open. i want to get to the latest on what is happening with the fiscal cliff. we will go to steven sloan from politico. word coming in that president

obama and john boehner talked on the phone and later on wednesday. what have we learned if anything about that conversation? caller: very little has leaked out on the conversation. we're not sure how long it lasted. it is a sign that maybe even incremental progress has been made this week. host: can we glean anything from who called who identify this phone conversation? when the last time they talk before wednesday afternoon was? host: it has been about one week since they talked. we do not even know, as far as i know, who called the. they really have given us the details on the call. host: we are talking to steven sloan. what is the latest on the two sites? who seems more willing to compromise at this point? caller: we are still a in this

game of chicken. both sides have made their offers. neither side appears at the moment close to making new offers or backpedaling on the offers may have made it. we still are in is still made mode right now. we will have to see whether that changes it. host: an article from politico yesterday. what is the latest on whether they will open up? caller: this is a deal that will be worked out between speaker john boehner and president obama. it will not be something that -- it is a deal between two and,

ultimately a few more people may become involved as we get later into the process. it is not something you will see televised any time soon. host: talk about some of the options on the table. this is your story from december 5 talking about the 37% solution. host: right now the top tax rate is 35%. unless congress acts, that goes to 39.6%. that is what the president wants to happen. republicans do not want to go that high. we started talking to republicans earlier this week. there is a little bit of by in of meeting in the metal. a small tax increase, maybe 37%. it allows democrats to say we did get a rate increase and it allows republicans to say yes,

but it is not as big as the president initially wanted. both sides can walk away saying in the 1. >> who are the people talking about standing out principles here? is anyone ready to go over the cliff? caller: the most conservative republicans and liberal democrats are willing to go over the cliff. they feel if they do not end up on better ground, if that does happen, at least we did so covering her -- going over on principles. host: thank you for joining us this morning. caller: thank you. host: we are taking your calls on this issue all morning. we will start with george from

florida on the republican line. good morning to you. caller: good morning. but i see is divided into this country. the people who are paying and the people who are getting. it comes down to the point where so few people are paying that i do not know where president obama thinks this can eventually go. whether it is one year or 10 years, somebody -- 1% will be paying everything. you cannot sustain any kind of an economy that way. i think both sides now are going to have to make some kind of compromise. the republicans have me a in mind because i have a small business. 35% -- all of the other taxes that become involved, that small

company cannot exist. who's to say it will not go to 69.4%? when will it stop? thank you very much. host: i also want to get david in on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. thank you to suspend for taking my call. sometimes i feel like c-span has changed their name to r-span if you know what i mean. a lot of right wing things going on. i think you are not quite as biased as you used to be. i hope we do go over the fiscal glove. the reason being, -- go over the fiscal cliff. the reason being, all bush era tax cuts will expire. the senate has already passed the bill for the middle class

tax cuts to continue. let the republicans in the house go ahead and fight for the 2% when all of the -- when all will go into effect. take the senate's version. i think they have been sitting on it for eight months in the house. i think it is terrible to treat the american people that way. being from michigan, we are going through a real challenge here from our hitler governor that you have seen in the news. he wants to take us to a right to work state. we all know what happens. wages go down, no benefits.

you work and work and work to make the owner rich and the worker sufferers. -- i do think we need to go over the fiscal cliff. host: here is the story from the "new york times" today.

we are talking about the fiscal cliff negotiations and whether compromise or sticking to principles should be what members of congress and the president should do here. a couple of weets this morning. when leaders say -- when people say leaders should stick to their principles, they mean leaders should stick to my principles. a lot of columns this morning talking about this issue, the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations. here is "the washington post."

we are taking your thoughts on the issue. but gutted the independent line. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: i agree also with a caller on the democrat line. i agree with what he was

referring to -- c-span changing a with bias. the issues, they did not talk about it. the ones who are behind it are the political parties. the industrial military complex host: if the country does off of the fiscal cliff, who do you

think it's more of the blame on this? it is the president of the united states or congress? caller: the people are being brainwashed to not speak up and get together like an tahrir square and rise up and say, we have to do it with this. we have to do away with destroying the country. we have to do away with $1 billion to a number of countries including israel. host: all right. we want to point out this from "usa today," in there opinion page.

we are taking your calls for the next half hour or so on this segment. i want to point out a paul krugman piece in "the new york times."

we will be talking about unemployment insurance and how it plays a role in the fiscal clift debate in our next two segment this morning, the first coming up in have of an hour. we are continuing with this question for you, compromise or stick to principles. gary, to wear for calling in. caller: i would like to say paul krugman is right, employment is a big problem. the way we can avoid the fiscal

cliff, which i think we need to avoid is to go with something like -- we are all dying out here in traffic chance of both ends of the day. if we use satellite computer technology to analyze, prioritize commack and design. the 163% one is also dangerous. two men have been killed of their in the past three years. in the first years of its existence it was considered one of the most accident prone and the stages. host: you think this should be at the top of the fiscal cliff negotiations right now?

caller: yes, because it would put a lot of people to work with our infrastructure. we have a big problem with our infrastructure. traffic is deplorable. up in's lives are going smoke. host: tony is from fort worth, texas. welcome to "the washington journal." caller: i think this a compromise because if they do not compromise and go over the cliff, this will set the standard for the next four years. i worked -- i voted for president obama, but i was also afraid he could not get anything done at the last four years. i believe that if they really want to put the american people first and stop playing politics and just put the american

people first and come to some kind of deal because the debt ceiling debate is coming up and all of these things will happen real soon, i think it will be the same thing that happened the last four years, a gridlock and obstructionism. first, they said they wanted to make barack obama a one-term president. what are they tried to do now? to some extent the white house as well. host: thank you for the call this morning. here is "the wall street journal."

and that peace in "the wall street journal." i want to show you a clip of john boehner talking about his position. [video clip] >> we have a debt problem out of control. we have to cut spending. the revenues we are putting on the table will come from -- guess who -- the rich. there are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes, and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax

rates which we believe will harm the economy. host: we are taking your calls this morning on whether members of congress and the presidential compromise or stick to their principles. brian is next from massachusetts on the independent line. caller: good morning. i think the republicans and democrats -- medicare is not paying for itself. it is costing us more than what we pay into it. if you make $1,000, they take $100 of of your medicare. if the big 2000, take $200, all the way up to $500. that way medicare is getting paid for. right now we are not paying for medicare. we're going into a hole because of it.

another thing is, we have lost over 500 jobs -- companies to outsourcing in the last 12 years. it is because of the free trade with china that is killing us. we are going to go bankrupt because of that. we need to put tariffs on china and bring jobs back to the country. host: are these things you think congress can tackle until the next couple of weeks before we hit the deadline? i think we lost brian and there. a comment from this but talking about the fiscal cliff issue. -- a comment from facebook talking about the fiscal cliff issue. i want to show you a bit this morning of president obama in an interview with the bloomberg tv on tuesday talking about where he is in the debate.

[video clip] >> i did not expect republicans to agree to any plan where they are betting that the entitlement reform will happen. we will have to have specific downpayments now recognizing we will have to continue to work to see if we can come up with better ideas to reduce health- care costs over the long term. that is the framework we are operating on. within that framework, i am happy to be flexible. i recognize i will not get 100%. i will not agree to a plan a in which we have some revenue that is vague and potentially comes out of the pockets of middle- class families in exchange for some very specific entitlement cuts that would affect seniors or other folks who are vulnerable. host: president obama with the

bloomberg tv. next up, sarah on the republican line. caller: i think president obama is blackmailing the congress. he thinks since he won the election, he should get his own way. he wins and the taxes on everybody. a one term president was not suggested until president obama said "elections have consequences, and i won the." it was after that that the statement was made. they have roadbed dead horse for miles and miles and miles and it is getting bad. what that meant was it was his

way or no way. that is why people said they were working towards a one-term president for him. obama is trying to wreck the economy so he can set up his socialist and communist government and agenda and people will be weak enough they will accept it. host: sarah from west virginia. let's of columns in the paper today. here is one from "the washington times." i want to take you to "the washington post."

i want to go to janet from massachusetts on the democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you? i just wanted to say i remember when the bush gave us all $250 per adult for our tax cuts.

you add those up and it becomes quite a big sum of money. it is a pittance for individuals, but it is a big amount of money. that was the beginning of the and for our economy. it was a planned demise by mr. bush. was he not the grandson of a man -- president bush who funded hitler. that is well known. i do not know why people do not talk about that. host: where are you getting that information? caller: that ever mission has been around a long time. host: janet from massachusetts. i want to read a tweet. some other news i want to point

out this morning. we spoke about tea party champion jim demint announcing his resignation. here is the article. he said he was leaving to run the heritage foundation, a think tank with close relations to like-minded members of congress. there is a picture of him for you there, a republican from south carolina. some columns of this morning about jmi demint stepping down. this from "the washington times."

that is "the washington times." at the same times, an editorial on jim demint with a different take.

two very different takes on the resignation of jim demint this morning. i also want to point out to you the front page of the "star advertiser." today is december 7, the anniversary of the attacks on pearl harbor.

here is the front page showing the front page from december 7, 1941. the untold story, reporter's eye witness sovereigns 71 years after the attack. president obama issued a proclamation for pearl harbor remembrance day. he notes on december 7, 1941, our nation suffered one of the most devastating attacks to ever be fall the american people. that is the presidential proclamation that was released

yesterday on the anniversary of pearl harbor. we are still talking about compromise, and we are sticking to principles on the fiscal cliff issue. nancy is next from austin, texas on the independent line. caller: i want to start off by saying, i think our biggest threat to our liberty is not in the middle east. it is in washington, d.c. the fact we are freaking out over the fiscal cliff and we keep losing track that we are $16 trillion in debt. we have only gotten that way because the u.s. dollar has been the reserve currency. that is help people pay for oil and around the world. that is going to end it. people are slowing down lending us money. that is why the federal reserve is printing more and more dollars, going out there in circulation. that is why you see price inflation in the stores.

the government -- you want to give them more money? these are the same people who stole the social security trust fund, yes? they spent it all. these are the same people who seem to have plenty of money for home and security to be buying tanks and drones for local police officers, the are militarizing the police. they want to start more wars. host: what happens in the next couple of weeks on the issues we are talking about with the fiscal cliff? would you be ok if we went over it? caller: i would not be happy about it, but yes. what is the answer, raise more taxes? they will just spend it. it will not spend it to knock down the debt. they would just say, more money for us to spend. what is the point? until they come to the table ready to slow down spending and

cut out entire agencies. we are a in big 8 -- we are in big trouble. a tweet -- i want to go now to the democratic line, dorothy is waiting from marble falls, texas. caller: good morning. i think they are missing the boat. what i suggest need happen is, it needs to be solved after an immigration level. most countries do have to put up some kind of bank account to bring your family across the border. if we had a family of four trying to sustain a citizenship

here, they should go put up some money in the bank account for a couple of years. as long as there are no other children being born, they do not get host: penalized will this solve the fiscal cliff issue we are facing? caller: yes, if you have money in the bank for every family of for wanting to cross the border, that sells a lot of problems. host: we will go to new york. mark is on the independent line. caller: good morning. first of all, it is very well known that press caught bush did support adolf hitler along with many americans. that is another thing that scares me. i think a major problem with the country is people do not know their history. yesterday somebody called and said carnegie and the robber

barons of the time were responsible for the middle class when they did everything they could to prevent the middle class from being created by unions. host: take us one month into the future and what you think will happen until the next couple of weeks? caller: i have no idea. i hope that obama sticks to his principles. i think they should leave medicaid, medicare, and social security alone. we have a very bulleted defense budget that needs to be cut. eisenhower warned us a denture his final address that the military-industrial complex would destroy this country. that is where the cuts should come from. host: thank you for the call.

a few programming notes for you today. james taylor will be at the national press club at 1:00. the singer-songwriter and guitarist will be talking about election reform at the national press club. you can catch that live on c- span and c-span radio. also, live at 7:00 p.m. at the university of virginia, mark warner sponsoring legislation to allow highly skilled immigrants into the united states. he will discuss his proposal at a forum hosted by the university of virginia at 7:00 p.m. right here on c-span. we are still taking your calls all morning on this issue of compromise or sticking to principles. from arkansas on the republican line, good morning. caller: i am calling about the

republicans -- i think we have to bend on the fiscal bet. almost half of this country voted against president obama. the democrats have to bend it. if we have to go off of a fiscal cliff, if we let him have 100% of he once, let it rip. i make good money now. i was almost at the poverty level. i understand how hard it is down there. i pay taxes when i was above poverty level. every person in a america needs to pay some taxes, even if it is only $10. i love c-span. host: you said you would not be willing to give the president 100%. he would be willing to go off the cliff if that was the demand. how much would you be willing to bend? caller: i think we have to bend

a lot because he won the election. but we are spending where we do not have money. yes, we have to bend it. i am truly a republican. i believe in our philosophy. most of the time, now 100%. i vote republican because they believe we should work for a living and not be handed out. if president obama thinks he deserves 100%, he is so wrong. he is not american. he is just not for us. it is always funny to me. i listen to you and you are great. when i listen to you, i think you the more to the left. it is amazing how i can think you lean left and democrats think you link to the right. i love you anyway. you are great. host: thank you for the call.

we want to hear from both sides on all of the issues we bring up. a few other stores we want to point out this morning. the chicago tribune has this story. one other story, i want to point out some of for mentioned above the inauguration coming out. this from "the washington post."

that is some information about the inauguration in january. we have a few minutes left in this segment. we want to go to jim on the

democratic line from oklahoma. caller: a little history lesson. the republicans had the house, the senate, and the presidency for six years. when that ended we were burning a hundred thousand jobs a month. george bush did not veto a single bill in the six years. he vetoed every bill the last two years of his term that the democratic congress put out -- all but two. this is on the republicans. these people will take us to fascism. host: how much do you think the president needs to give? caller: absolutely none of it. and these -- to give these guys a chance.

if it does not work, we will try somebody else. look at what he did to enron. i could have done that job for one-tenth of what he did it for and i could not have done any worse. it is time we start outsourcing the top people instead of the bottom. host: i want to get and the bill from louisiana on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you today? on the this compromise, i heard that if obama gets his way and gets an increase on the taxes on the 250,000, we will lose

1,800,000 jobs. if the republicans get their way, we will not lose any jobs. which way do you want to go? host: where are you reading your statistics from? caller: i had a friend of mine tell me this. host: are you willing to -- caller: you will not see this in the newspaper because they will not print it. they will not print anything that is-against obama. never. not ever. you are reading it now from the newspaper. that is what i am trying to tell you. if you read the newspapers, you will not get the news. host: built from louisiana this morning. coming up as part of the series

looking into specific policy areas impacted by the so-called fiscal cliff, we will look at unemployment insurance and how it can be altered as the end of the year approaches. american history tv will feature the literary life of albany capital city. here is the mayor talking about the city. [video clip] >> it is the capital of the greatest aid until the country as far as i am concerned. we have a great history people want to know about. it is a great story to tell. every group would enter the world -- 97,000 population -- 98,000. we just about double every day with the number of workers that come in. you have your other businesses and people coming to the city. there are challenges no doubt like every urban city here in

new york and across the country. is the attitude about urban education and how many kids we are losing their are not graduating from schools. basically saying, we have an issue here we have to deal with. i try to discuss that with other mayors across the state and with the decision makers. we have to come up with solutions. it is a burden for a lot of cities, not just school taxes but property taxes and trying to balance the budget to provide the services needed. this are two major problems. this is a very old city. we have a lot of beautiful historic buildings. and in many ways when people do not take care of them, it is hard to keep them on the tax rolls or make sure people invest in them. basically, i have been through five governors in my 19 years as the mayor.

i deal directly with the governors and the people in the senate and the assembly. we talk about the state capital which was tax -- 74% tax exempt. a lot of it was a result of the state taking over a large percentage of our city. a lot of it was non for profits. i have had a good working relationship with people in the state governments. it is good to have them close. i can see what they're doing and to buy and put and see what i can do for the people of the city. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] host: we turn our attention to unemployment insurance and how it can be impacted. joining us for the discussion is josh .

caller: it is a combination of a federal and state program. it usually lasts -- it can be extended up to 93 weeks. it is the extension be on the six month time frame we're talking about as part of the fiscal cliff tops. host: that is what might be caught -- cut? guest: that is what automatically expires. president obama has said as part of the deal i want to make, the benefits should continue. republicans have not taken a firm stand. we have seen in the past obama has had to make a deal on taxes. host: what specific benefits do these programs provide?

guest: usually some kind of a cash benefit or they may help the search for a job. it is usually about $300 a week. it can vary from state sen. in the mississippi i want to say it is closer to $200. host: how are the programs funded? guest: they are funded through payroll taxes. through the trust the state administers the program and the money goes to the unemployed. host: talk about qualifications for unemployment insurance. what do people have to meet in order to apply? guest: generally what you have to do is you have to have a year of earnings. your earnings have to meet a certain threshold. you have to have been let go from a job. you cannot storm off having quit and necessarily qualify for -- to qualify for unemployment benefits.

if he graduated from college and do not have a job, you get unemployment benefits. it is a pretty easy system to get into if you were laid off after 10 years. host: we have some qualifications a person must meet on the screen there. have lost a job through no fault of his or her own. explain what that means. guest: you have to be laid off. there is the difference between being laid off and being fired. corporate downsizing. you cannot get unemployment benefits if he were to leave in dramatic fashion by quitting your job by your own accord. host: what are the estimates about the impact of unemployment insurance if it is on the extended in the fiscal cliff talks? guest: it is-it. if they do not get the money from unemployment insurance.

the jobs do not exist in the private sector to take on, then they spend less. that is bad for the economy. the $30 billion cost of extending the programs would generate $33 billion in benefits. that is because the money trickles through the system. the unemployment insurance check spent on food, housing, he teen, all of the basic necessities that give us a multiplier effect. host: this is from the national employment law project. estimates of numbers of people who will be affected if the program ends. 2 million workers collecting insurance will be cut off after payments for the week ended december 29. nearly 1 million more workers will run out of state unemployment benefits without access to the euc by the end of the first quarter of 2013. tickets for those numbers a

little bit and specifically the one a million more workers. guest: there are two fundamental programs part of the extension. the important thing about them, this is what really counts in this, they provide the additional benefits passed the six months the market. if workers do not get the additional benefits, they are possibly forced onto other kind of government programs like welfare. that creates additional cost for the government. that is one important consideration to make. over the course of the year, as many as 10 million americans get on unemployment. that is a pretty sizable chunk. we will see cycled through. right now about 40% of

unemployed americans have been unemployed for longer than six months. you are looking at sizable numbers. host: i appreciate the thoughts on unemployment insurance. we are opening up the lines to you this morning, the republican line is open at 202-585-3881. the democratic line 202-585- 3880. give us a call in. we have a special line this morning for those receiving unemployment insurance. the lines are open for questions about unemployment insurance. take us through some of the options you are hearing the about this program and altering it. guest: there needs to be broader

reform. let's look at the overarching issue. people who stay on unemployment longer tend to have more difficulty landing a job. you have a weird paradox and which you extend the benefits -- it you should extend the benefits because there is economic aid that insures additional growth. it does not necessarily put people back into the workforce. a lot of employers say they do not see potential workers with the skills needed. we have more than 40 job- training programs that need to be resawed. we have to reconsider how we get people back into the workforce. you have a program like jobs now that uses government money to pay for the training costs and some of the start up costs of bringing on a new employee. some of the small businessmen

who met up with president obama have been beneficiaries of that program. host: how many times has this unemployment insurance been extended? guest: twice before, i believe it. the most important time for our current fiscal of talks is 2010. that is when president obama extended all of the bush tax cut rates that are about to expire. host: we want to get the first question from cindy on twitter. sen the it's the exact dynamic that is a problematic in this. -- guest: cindy it's the exact problem as a problematic. it will only increase government spending. unemployment benefits are a stopgap measure that prevent

people who might be able to get work from getting other government benefits. the most egregious example is social security disability. as people start to exhaust their unemployment benefits, they apply for disability. that is a good program designed for people who are unable to work. as more and more people who can work apply for it, that drains the resources. once they get on that, they do not get back into the workforce. we see the trust fund set to hit insolvency in 2016. host: we will go first to tim from carolina on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? i would like to ask a question. how can the government extend

unemployment benefits to the tune of -- it seems like unlimited when the recession came in in 2009 and i guess bush was leaving and obama was coming in. how could they extend them that long when i am 47 years old and i have never done it in my life until 2009. yet these people were able to go way past the 62 weeks or what ever it was and still keep drawing it and get -- they have been on it for almost one year. somehow, you should be able to find some kind of employment. it may not be what you want, but some kind of in, where you can move off of this. the democrats have pushed this so much and it pushed the recession. i do not believe it was a true recession is. if you look at 29 people will

see what a real recession is. these people are on the dole. guest: the caller raises several good points. let's go back to 2009 when the recession hit at the first -- at the highest level. in indiana, you had a match people applying for unemployment insurance. their rationale was that this was insurance that had been paid as part of the payroll tax. if we fast forward, we keep seeing a recovery from the recession has been incredibly slow. a lot of americans see their wages falling and there is a belief that there should be some form of government stimulus. republicans think it should involve tax cuts and fewer

regulations. democrats see benefits from social programs. what we do know is that unemployment insurance can only go as long as 93 weeks, and it is usually kept at 26 weeks. we see a fundamental mismatch between the skills these workers have, and what is employers are looking for. we are not doing a good job as a society in insuring hiring markets work as they're supposed to. >> we -- host: we have some statistics on what on unplowed workers can receive. which is unemployed workers can receive. also, a chart with the number of people who began receding

unemployment benefits by fiscal year. robert is from miami, florida. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am collecting benefits. i have been unemployed since 2010. it is hard to find a job after all these months, and my biggest problem is i have hiv and a lot of places do not want to hire me because of health issues. i cannot lie about it.

host: what happens at the end of this year? caller: i will be cut off. host: how much money are we talking about? caller: after taxes, i do claim them, i did $740 of month. host: what do you plan to do if they are cut off? caller: i have tried to file for social security. they denied me because they say that i am able to work. i am able to work. it is hard for me to find a job because of my health issue. if that is my biggest problem. i'm capable, and ready to work, and i live in the state of florida. this is my biggest problem

host: josh boak, your thoughts? guest: this exemplifies one of the biggest problems. ford was devastated by the housing doubled. we see a mixture of factors. a health issue, a question of skills, and a fundamental question about what we should do as a society. we see the benefits are necessary to sustain the quality of life, but they do not necessarily lead to a job. getting people into the workforce is the goal, but we are using stop-gap measures. host: right-wing writes in on twitter -- studies show many people find a job within weeks of their unemployment expiring, however long it lasts. guest: there is a belief that if you get people off of unemployment benefits that will cause them to get work.

they will say i need a job and i must get it. that happens in some circumstances, but what we also see in this economy, a unique circumstance because of the devastating financial crisis, is that people are going on other government benefits, and it is kind of, how do you want to do this? you can hope to get the job, or you have to be prepared to spend additional money. sometimes ideology does not match the practicality of the policy. host: jean, democratic line, california. caller: my son was working as a commercial dump truck driver. he had a good relationship with

the company, and they told him the job less for one week. another company was hiring, and they wanted him to work 12 hours a day, six days a week. he has a commercial driver's license, and the null -- amount of hours are limited. he asked if he could worked 10 hours a day, six days a week and they said no. he did not want to lose his license, so he quit, and could not get unemployment because he quit. we could not find a lawyer or attorney that would fight the system in tennessee, so he has not gone any benefits. host: your thoughts on that situation? guest: unfortunate. the deal is the paradox intentions do not align. they do not clearly match what

you would think the text book would say. when you are looking to 10 million people receiving unemployment of some kind and so many people without jobs, you will find individual circumstances like this? defy what we think should be -- that defy what should be happening. host: we are talking to josh boak, who previously worked with "the chicago tribune. how long have you been with "the fiscal kinds -- fiscal kinds? guest: since july. host: we are taking your calls on the fiscal cliff. john is next, from new york, receiving unemployment benefits. caller: my biggest concern

right now with the unemployment thing is that i do not have a ged so my biggest problem is attending school in programs while i am trying to get back to work, and nobody in this economy will touch somebody without a high-school diploma. it is hard, because i have worked my whole life and i have three kids to raise. it is hard, because i have to go back to work. something needs to change. i'm a hard-working some of the gun and everyone in my family knows it. i hear everyone talking about how this economy is bad. i'm doing side jobs just to put food on the table. the next as government assistance, and we should not have to be there.

host: how will the fiscal cliff negotiations affect you? will you lose benefits? caller: i will lose benefits at the end of december, and i will have to go on county assistance to see what they can do to help, but i would rather go back to work. i started picking work when i was 12 years old. host: what are you doing to prepare for the scenario? caller: i am trying to get my ged but i have always had a problem with education. guest: this is a huge issue. people like john are not at the negotiation table. it is tough to consider the full range of decisions. what we find time and time again

is that the education and skills component of helping unemployed workers get back into the workforce is a big obstacle. we have 40 programs on the federal level to deal with that, but based on analysis out of rutgers university, is usually people that have been able to find their own education path and get their own skills and out of these government programs have been the most successful. that is a problematic dynamic. host: lisa is next from texas on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to bring up a different perspective. and i am a business owner, and what has not been discussed is the burden of unemployment insurance placed on the small

business owner. i have seen the percentage doubled in the last four years. the employee does not pay for the insurance. the employer does. the gentleman that just spoke, there are programs out there to get your gd -- ged. host: lisa, tell me more about your business. how much do you pay in taxes to fund an employment insurance? caller: we do business in several states. in pennsylvania we were paying about 8%, and now it has gone up to 16%. i got a notice from the state of new york. they are not able to pay the interest on a loan that they took to pay for unemployment

insurance. now, the employer, not only paid -- pays for the unemployment insurance percentage every time the issue payroll, but now we have to pay -- this time it was $13 for each person we had on payroll in the state of new york. two years ago we had to pay a lump sum of $3,000. you do not see this coming. they send you a notice and say you have to pay this off. host: josh boak, talk about this from the employer's perspective. guest: it is an issue in a variety of ways. because of the slow recovery, you have that more dependence on the unemployment insurance and as a result of a lot of the reserves within that trust fund which is managed by the federal government on behalf of the state is depleted, and the need to get additional income that

said, and the challenge of all of this is that in players are not able to hire because of the bad economy, and that creates additional pressure. then, the golan additional programs, and this is part of the negative cycle we have had difficulty breaking and figuring out how to turn it into a virtue was one has been the primary challenge of the last four years. host: at a tweet -- it is funny how people who complain about on employment benefits being on the dole change their tune when they suddenly lose their job. another tweet from american hero -- the only way to get back into the workforce is to ease into it. minimum wage blocks this. the only thing that works ever. talk about the minimum wage issue and how this plays into

the debate. guest: sure. the state to step back from where minimum wage is currently, which i believe is about $7.25 an hour. on the whole, americans renouncing wage increases for an extended time when you adjust for inflation. the fundamental issue is not just a minimum wage, but the absence of demand. it has been more affordable to bring people on at that level. that said, if you were to get rid of it, you would have people earning money, but they would still need government assistance. that is the question. do you want people to be free of government assistance, back in the work force earning a living, or do you want to create a system where they earn money of some kind of, of some capacity, with a job that pays the low minimum wage where it currently stands, and still

meeting the government hand? with joshe talking boak of "the fiscal times." we have a new jobs report coming out in about 15 minutes. what is the prediction right now? guest: unemployment is 7.9% for the month of october. that is still an historic high. and 80 in number came out with about a 118,000 increase. a lot of this will depend on a seasonal adjustments. one thing happens in november. stores hire people for black friday and holiday shopping. anybody that does shipping, because we buy so much online, needs truck drivers, and all of that has an impact.

how you adjust on a seasonal level will be the wild card. host: that jobs report comes out in the next 15, 20 minutes or so, and we will bring back to you. we will continue to discuss unemployment insurance 04 about an hour on -- for about an hour on "washington journal." tennessee. tell us your story. caller: i have about one week left. i am an architect. i've had a great career, but the reality is there is nothing being done with our government. there is no end in sight. the banks are not loaning money. nothing will be built comparatively. we are doing all the wrong things.

the 40 different programs, or whatever, are predominantly a waste. host: the training programs, you are talking about? caller: i am sure there are some benefits, like maybe for the collar without the education, who could get past that i think there's a budget could be some benefit. -- there could be some benefit. the employers are participating in programs where they could get training for specific work to help, focusing on the skill set and needed. you could put people back to work that way. i'm sure there could be some advantage there, and there is. if a guy like myself, and there is 23 million, or the other half -- other half but quit looking,

but the conditions have been wrong for looking for work. we have best government to basically do to much from top- to-bottom, and it panders to half of the population. basically, we have almost become like all of the other countries that we laughed about for a lifetime. the table for a vote. what program can i get on? guest: you said your benefits are running now soon. are you looking for any job at this point, and what are you doing to prepare for january? caller: i have been looking all over. i went to a grocery chain, as an

example, to take a low-level position. i am in my late-50's. i found out there is one kind of discrimination in america, and that is understandable. they would rather hire a younger guys than an older guy, and maybe an educated guess, with a figure will lead when things get good -- when you have as many people out of work, you know, there are 100 people applying for every job out there. that is an exaggeration, but not too many. i have run into situations where 250 people are applying for more senior level positions. host: josh boak, could you had some thoughts in terms of number of jobs that are open compared to those applying? guest: let's talk about the

creation of the uncommon insurance benefits this started in 1935 with social security, and this is critical because the u.s. economy was different during the great depression than it is now. there were not as many people with college degrees. the expectation of what bill work force was in terms of the service economy -- what the work force was in terms of the service economy and manufacturing were different. obviously, the people administering the programs are trying to keep them as out-to- date as possible and keep an effective, that is not the case. with george, you see a fundamental dilemma. unemployment insurance exists so people have time to find jobs in their field, like architecture. what we see in this economy, caused by the housing bust, it

is hard to find jobs, and baby boomers, on the cusp of retirement, have become a risk. it is very easy to get your resume out, so you have more and more resumes flooding job openings. george hit the nail on the head. h., is that where you see in your experience -- host: is that what you see in your experience, george? caller: yes. one-third of our profession is out of worked, people that took 10 years to get a license and then whatever many years of experience. those jobs will not be coming back anytime soon, no matter

what, maybe ever. guest: what you see is we have a system that was built for a different economy than the issues that we are dealing with right now. when we talk about broader reform, that needs to happen, but right now that is not part of the fiscal cliff talks. what is part of the fiscal cliff talks is the immediate economic aid that could be provided by extending these. host: george, thank you. you want to go to dave on the republican line. caller: unemployment extension, that is welfare. that is money from the taxpayer. that is living off of the dole. you are right. the first six months is money from the payroll tax, which is

paid in because you work i have to say -- work. i have to say ditto to the last caller. i have experienced age discrimination when it comes to the job surge, and they know how will you are. you are right about baby boomers. we need to grow the economy. mitt romney was right. c-span, i want to know what party affiliation, and who they voted for, that are on unemployment right now. thank you. host: thank you. we could get that information as well. bob, mich. on the independent line. good morning to you. bob are you there? i think we lost bob this morning. i want to talk with this issue

of age discrimination and who is on unemployment insurance. here is an article from "the baltimore sun." 93,000 young adults in maryland are unemployed. what ages are on unemployment insurance at this point? guest: historical you tend to see younger workers with less experience on unemployment, because of this recession we see a much wider spread. more people with college degrees, older people taking on income and benefits of some kind, but the challenges once you get past the six-month blocked, the longer you are on unemployment without a job, the harder it is to find a job. if you have a college degree, and you really need to get a job, to some degree you can move

down the economic ladder. you might not want to, it might not be positive for society, but when you do? pg when you do that, it pushes someone -- but when you do that, it pushes someone else further down. host: hawaii. tell us about your situation, gino. caller: i have been on unemployed. -- on unemployment. host: do you mind same with your party affiliation is? caller: i am a democrat. host: what happens with your benefits after the end of the

year if the -- we go over the fiscal cliff? caller: i do not really know. i just found out about it host: tell us about gino's situation. are there a lot of folks that do not know what is coming not? guest: a lot of these people do not know. a lot of these talks are in obscure details, and society operates on headlines. when neither did this leave when we look at this $30 billion, -- when we look at this $30 billion, it is nothing like the 1.6 trillion debt that the president is looking for in tax increases.

who knows what will happen to the economy over that time. it is possible we pass the fiscal cliff with a good deal, and folks like goldman sachs and lloyd blankfein say the economy will takeoff, and if that is the case people will leave benefits because they have a job. host: if this is not addressed in the fiscal cliff debate, will it come up in the debt ceiling debate? guest: all of this depends on how the fiscal cliff sorts itself out. yesterday, you have senators say we want on income benefits extended. if the fiscal cliff debate is only limited to tax rates and deficit reduction, and not the debt ceiling, this will come up again. president obama once the debt ceiling to be part of this

agreement. the reason why is simple, because that is where republicans have leverage in february. he needs republicans to extend the debt ceiling for the government to function with all going into default. republicans know this, and in theory they could separate the two to maximize their leverage. host: time for a couple more calls in this segment of the "washington journal," we will continue the unemployment insurance discussion in the following segment. laura is in louisville, kentucky, on the independent line. caller: good morning. what bothers me is when people say they actually can not find work and they have been on unemployment for 20 months, whatever they can get, and i will tell you my husband lost his job five years ago. he was with a company for 23

years. immediately we went into survival mode. we thought about what we could do to reduce bills, simplify our lifestyle in case he could not find a job, and in between he took jobs well below his skill level, temporary work -- whenever he could find. when he finally found a good job, they wanted to know what he had been doing in between the time he left his job and found a new job. the people that have been unemployment all of these months and they say they cannot get temporary work, i do not believe it. host: how long was your husband on unemployment insurance for? caller: when you find temporary work, you can go off of unemployment, and when that ends, you could go back on. i want to say he was on maybe

six months at the absolute most because he was taking temporary work. the point is that the longer they stay on unemployment, it hurts their chances of getting a job because when he did get a job they wanted to know every single temporary job that he took because they looked at him as someone that was willing to work and not willing to take advantage of unemployment insurance, and that mattered to them. guest: there are a couple of ways to look at this. congratulations to laura's husband for getting a job in pulling through. that is great. -- and pulling through. that is great. a lot of people to that, but when you have 14 million people, there are a lot diverse stories can jobs and training could take longer than that six months --

stories. jobs and training could take longer than six months. and in plan benefits are contingent on you -- unemployment benefits are contingent on you looking to get a job actively. there is a variety of ways to do that. some people are more aggressive than others, but those benefits do depend on that. the problem that you highlight, it is in players are sheepish about hiring someone -- in players are sheepish about hiring someone that has been on unemployment for a long time. the longer they are on on employment, the harder it is to bring them back. host: stella in illinois. good morning. stalin receives unemployment insurance. caller: good morning. my company laid me off.

i never heard a reason, but i heard through the grapevine that the company was downsizing the other three employees were offered other positions within the company. i was the oldest out of the four of us. in my mind, i was thinking that i was let go because i was 55 years old and they were younger, and they were offered other jobs within the company. i do have some college experience but i do not have a degree. i was thinking of of going back to college, but it is a catch- 22. and i am 55 years old, and if i decide to go back to college, will i be able to get a job because i will be 60, or 61 or 62 when i finish? the lady that was on the phone,

i interviewed with a temporary service, and they accepted my resume, gave me a call over the phone, told me to go online to apply for a position, and i applied and put on there that i had a high-school diploma and i have not heard anything from them since. host: end, with a situation from illinois. breaking news on the unemployed rate and jobs numbers. in november, 146,000 jobs were added, bringing the unemployment number to 7.7%. josh boak, your reaction? guest: that is is strong reading given what we see in economic growth. if you add more than 120,000 jobs, that means you're keeping up with population growth.

146,000 jobs is a good sign, and the reduction to 7.7% books to be positive in the rough headline numbers, but it is important to see the seasonal adjustment and the details and remember that over the next two months those figures will be revised. host: josh boak, national correspondent, "the fiscal times," thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will can tell you this discussion with michael tanner and josh bivens. later, we look of the energy information administration's annual energy outlook, 2013, with that report out this week on the future of energy production. ♪

>> the supreme court will look at what was passed in 2008 by a majority of 6-3, and they will say that this precedent. and, indian head a voter idea -- id -- indiana had a voter i.d.. >> it was constitutional for them to establish identification. they did not say that all of those states where subsequent. >> exactly. they talked about indiana. let me finish, because you are misrepresenting what i say. the supreme court is the law of the land. when i hear the accusations voter i.d. laws disproportionately effect

minorities, it implies to me that we have something missing in our brain, or we are lesser than. if what americans can get the id, and follow the laws, where you telling black people? -- what are you telling black people? that they're not good enough? that bothers me coming from the democrats and the left, then there has to be special concessions when dealing with minorities because they cannot follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like the victims, i think they do not want to aspire. >> more with crystal wright sunday night at 8:000 on c-

span's "q&a." >> it was estimated that the land would cost 700,000 to be killed, and 500,000 of them to be named for life. >> as harry truman's grandson, someone in the middle of this, choose to honor both, the sacrifice and the sacrifice of american servicemen fighting their way through the pacific. it is not a national what -- imaginable what that must have been like, to be close to where the fireball originated and the blast was strongest. >> follow clifton truman daniel.

he joins us to discuss meetings with bomb survivors and the inspiration for his trip at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we continue our look at unemployment insurance and its role in the fiscal clift debate, we are joined by michael tanner and josh bivens. mr. michael tanner, if you had your way in these discussions, where what unemployment insurance end up at the end of the day? guest: i think the emergency extension should fade away and we should go back to the 46 weeks that we have been at, the 26 weeks of traditional employment, and extended benefits in states that have higher unemployment rates. you start with the fact that unemployment insurance itself,

when you extended for a long times as questionable value. we know it leads to an increase in the on and -- unemployment rate. that is dubious enough, but when you factor in that we will deficit finance this and slow economic growth overall, destroying jobs of the same time we pay people for being unemployed, a thing that creates a problem. host: how much money do we save if we do not extend emergency benefits? guest: $30 billion, as much as $40 billion. closer to $30 billion. host: mr. josh bivens, from your perspective, how should this play out. guest: the emergency implement should be extended. we still have a week labor

market. we should be clear about what is keeping the economy weak and that his lack of demand from household, businesses, government, and not spending enough money to keep people employed. inking money out of the system would drive off the unemployment system. to become the primary reason to extend unemployment is just the compassionate thing to do. people rely on the benefits. it would be a crushing blow. they provide a crucial crutch for the economy that still needs it. host: we are taking your calls the numbers are there for you. we will still have the line for those receiving of employment insurance -- tool 2-585-383. you can give us a call on that line. i want to talk about the bureau

of labor statistics on unplowed numbers that are out as a just a couple of minutes ago -- on employment numbers that are out just as a couple of minutes ago in an employment rate is down to 7.7%. mr. josh bivens, how will that play into the debate over the extension of unemployment insurance? guest: i am not sure. i am afraid we have had such low expectations that people might see this as a fantastic jobs report. are have not gone into the details. the headline number, 146,000 jobs is not fantastic. it barely beats population growth. it does not put a lot of sustained, downward pressure on the unemployment rate. my fear is we have had this creeping down of unemployed, which is a good thing, but we are so far from the late --

normal labor market. i worry people to to much comfort in a report like this and will be less momentum to keep benefits going. host: mr. michael tanner? guest: i am in agreement. it is not a terrific number, better than expected, but this is a much slower recovery than we have had in previous recessions. the unemployment rate is much higher than it should be compared to previous recessions, coming out of them, and we're just barely doing better and what we need to do to break even. host: showing that it is a slow rate of recovery, in your opinion is not an argument to extend the benefits? guest: again, if we are deficit- financing the benefits, i do not think it is slowing economic growth. i cannot buy into the argument that we have the demand problem

and we need to spend more money and have more stimulus to create economic growth. where we have is the failure of businesses to invest because they recognize the high taxes will keep them on the sidelines. they're facing the fact that they will face lower profits in the future and are not as willing to take risks and invest. if it costs more money to hire someone, we have the new taxes, insurance mandate under obama- care, and things like that that will make it more expensive for people to hire people. host: we have the cato institute and the economic policy institute with us this morning, and the one area where people seem to disagree is measuring the benefits of what $1 put into unemployment insurance means on the backside. mr. josh bivens, what is your

estimate on what $1 buys in this program? guest: a lot of economic forecasters agree this is the most efficient form of economic support you can provide through fiscal policy. when dollar spent yields about $1.50, $1.70 in economic activity. $30 billion is at stake here. we are basically talking, if we do not do that, nearly knocking a half of a percentage point off of gdp and have 140,000 fewer jobs at the end of the year. host: mr. michael tanner, your reading on what the dollar buys? guest: not surprisingly, i do not agree. i agree with economic experts that suggest that the keynesian economics model they are using their does not work, as it

assumes that on income and benefits are spent and none of this aid to pay off existing debt. -- saved to pay off existing debt. we know that working spouse houses tend to cut back. that lowers overall income. there are a number of studies and that suggests you get less than $1 worth for your buck. host: talk about what you do with the cato institute. guest: we are a libertarian think tank, believing in individuality and free markets. a hint of things the social welfare, health care, retirement. host: and the economic policy institute? guest: we are a non-profit, making sure that low and

moderate-income americans are represented in the debates. i am afraid our experts to date are entangled with the jobs report, so you got me instead. host: darcell from texas receives unemployment insurance. good morning talk about your situation and what you are doing to prepared? caller: i do not know if i will be effected, but i know some callers were calling in about six months and how they were able to something. i moved from florida. florida was hit hard, as one of your guests said earlier, and i could not find anything at all. one of the reasons, and this has

not been brought up, is i had something on my record, a felony, about nine years ago, and i do not care what you apply for -- retail, customer service, where house -- you will not get hired when they look at that record. i had moved to texas, and fortunately i was able to get something after awhile, but going straight to employers and trying to fill out applications, and they look at credit reports, all of these things and they do not hire you. they have the pick of the letter now, so they pick and choose, and this issue has not been addressed in congress at all. host: did you have problems applying for unemployment insurance with this issue? caller: not a problem applying, but then, of course, it goes to

a certain time where, right now, you will be facing a cut off. host: talk about the qualifications. are their suggestions for changing them, or the right people who need the system getting the and in using them? guest: you need to have a strong labor force attachment recently, and to have lost your job through no fault of your own. and, -- it differs by state, but basically you need to meet some earnings threshold. that is a problem for low-wage workers then need to work many more hours to meet that threshold than others. the biggest problem today is that people that are unemployed, and will no longer be eligible, is the fiscal

cliff. if we cut off the emergency compensation program and do away with the funding for the emergency benefit program, which has been taken entirely by the federal government, we will have one quarter of the unemployed eligible for unemployment benefits, and that will be lower than in normal times, let alone recessionary times. there are a lot of reforms we could do to make a broader class of people eligible. some say you should only be eligible if you are looking for full-time work. the biggest problem right now in terms of people being eligible is the fiscal cliff negotiations. host: mr. michael tanner, are to many people qualifying for unemployment insurance? guest: i did not think it is a question of qualification. people have to have the labour force attachment. it is a form of social

insurance. the federal section is a general revenue issue that is part of the overall budgetary issues. the big question is how long you will let people stay on unemployment insurance. we do cut back. even with the president is talking about is a smaller extension of unemployment benefits than previously. it was 99 weeks, and it has come back to 84, and only one state qualified for that amount. the average nationwide is under 60 weeks. at some point, you will have to say no, unless we turn into a country like belgium where you could get lifetime unemployment benefits. i do not think anyone plans to do that in the united states. host: i am, from monticello, minn.. republican line. good morning.

diane, are you there? maryland to a democratic line, wade. caller: good morning. these people keep talking about the slow recovery compared to previous recoveries, but nobody considers how many jobs -- how many companies have shipped jobs out of the economy. there are fewer jobs. how will people find jobs? host: mr. michael tanner? guest: the number of jobs shipped overseas is much smaller than people realize, but it is no longer global to be a high- school dropout and getting manual labor job. we are moving from that manual labor, low-skill jobs

environment, to one in which he will have to have more education and skills. that is the reality of globalization, and i do not think you will have to avoid that. where to put more attention to and on getting people the skills -- we have to put more attention and getting people the skills. we will never have thousands of people sitting at sewing machines making t-shirts. host: another area where your groups seemed to disagree is whether the unemployment insurance creates a disincentive to look for work. mr. josh bivens, we start with you on this subject. caller: the two -- guest: the two previous callers identified the root problem -- there are not enough jobs. the ratio is still over three- to-one. if we could wave a magic wand, we would still have a large majority of unemployed workers

looking for jobs. that is not a problem of skills. it is not a problem of employers dying to hire, but there are not the people out there. we just do not have the demand for services in the economy. that is like cutting off this source of demand would be a bad thing. in terms of a disincentive effect, we do not worry about that. a lot of research looks at what unemployed and insurance does the behavior of people, and recent papers say people that stay on unemployment longer because of a the employment insurance -- there are a couple of things going on there. you're just changing the classification of people from not in the labour force to unemployed. that is a good thing. it is not like you would have magically creating jobs by cutting off their benefits. you're keeping them actively

engaged in looking for work. you want people to be a little bit choosy. it does not make a lot of sense to say a software engineer should be made so poor, so quickly, that they must take the first job available no matter what the skill qualification is. that is not efficient for the economy. crucial macro economic support allows better matches through the economy. host: mr. michael tanner on disincentives? guest: an area of disagreement. most economists believe unemployment insurance do increase in unemployment rate, they just disagree on how much. it extends the length of time people are unemployed from about three-to-10 weeks on average. we do know that the length of time that people spend in jobs surge of activity increases significantly in the last few

weeks before the unemployment benefits expire. it goes up on a daily basis by about three times. if you look at when people get jobs, there is a huge cluster in the last weeks before the unemployment benefits expire. people tend to be willing to take a job that might not be a perfect match to the length of time on unemployment actually -- match. the length of time and on income actually hurts the workers, -- on unemployment actually hurts the workers. the report suggests that extending benefits and definitely adds permanently about 0.4% to the unemployment rate because you have skills so atrophied on unemployment insurance that they're no longer employable at all. host: bob receives unemployment

insurance. tell us about your situation. caller: 5 in a single-earner, and thank god i have made a good living. assuming i could get a job, and nothing against the folks at fast food or nothing like that, but if you were making a minimum amount of money, with my situation, i would be in the street using that job. i could not pay them -- pay my bills. i am not talking about luxuries. i rent. i would not be able to pay that. thank god unemployment insurance is geared to what you used to make, so that, and by the way, i am in my 60's. it is not easy. without that amount coming in that is based on what i used to

make, i would not be able to survive. host: mr. josh bivens, a chance on this one. guest: that points out that unemployment insurance is a form of social insurance. people take lower wages because the employer has to pay tax. they pay into the system while things are going well, and if they hit a rough spot they hit a benefit that somewhat match its previous earnings. it is not a lavish benefit. it is targeted to capture half of your previous earnings. some of them are lower than $300. this is not a lavish way to live. it will not induce people not to surge. you actually want to give potential workers a chance to make a decent match. you do not want people scrambling for the absolute

first job available because that is not good for the employer or the employee. host: dave, mich., independent line. caller: good morning. i worked for a company that is closed and has moved to china, and when those guys were laid off, some of them were in holland and belgium, they received like full-pay benefits for five-years-to-seven-years. in belgium, i think it was over 10 years of unemployment at full pay. so, i do not know if that is something we want to look at in the u.s., because we always talk about how europe works so well. would we want to go to a system that pays 10 years, not of the minimum wage on employment, but

unemployment that pays $40 or $50 an hour. the company fired everyone in the united states, moved to china, and hired engineers over there. it is an automated plant that makes television sets, and it sells most of those television sets bacteria in the united states, so demand is -- sells them back here in the united states. host: mr. michael tanner? guest: a great number of economist would suggest that our reason why your pin unemployment rates have been so much higher is the european unemployed rates are so much higher -- european unemployment rates are so much higher because of the longevity of the benefits. it is a textbook about the fact that there is a huge problem in that there is a huge problem in